Standing Committee G

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Clause 27 - ''Litter''

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Question again proposed. 
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking new clause 2—Producer responsibility for litter caused by discarded chewing gum etc.— 
 '(1) The Secretary of State must consult on producer responsibility measures to— 
(a) discourage litter caused by discarded chewing gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing; and 
(b) provide financial redress to litter authorities for the costs incurred by removal of discarded chewing gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing. 
 (2) The consultation must— 
(a) include such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of litter authorities as he considers appropriate; 
(b) include such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of producers and distributors of chewing gum and other products designed for chewing as he considers appropriate; and 
(c) publish recommendations before 2007. 
 (3) The consultation must consider both voluntary and statutory schemes.'.

Anne McIntosh: I am pleased to be approaching the conclusion of our substantial discussion on clause 27. I have taken the opportunity to ask further advice. Westminster city council is delighted that the debate has gotten the £9 million cost into the public domain. Without detaining the Committee for too long or getting stuck on the provision, I just want to say that the Government are being accused of not listening. The council tried to make those points in consultation and it is delighted to have the opportunity to do so again through our debate on the clause. I urge the Minister to use his good offices to take a closer look at the streets, because, in my humble submission, his understanding of the situation is entirely wrong. The unsightly spots on the street are predominantly—forgive the graphic description, Mr. Forth—solid, flattened lumps of chewing gum. When they are left for a considerable time, they may be slowly worn down by passing feet, but the residue of gum lasts a very long time.
Westminster city council has measured many things, but it has not yet measured the time taken for a single piece of gum to wear away. What it cleans off is gum, so we are discussing the cleaning-off of gum, not just  staining. If the council is asked to do spot clearance of gum, rather than whole paving-slab clean-up, spots usually remain. Those are clean spots, rather than stains, because the gum adhesive takes with it any general dirt left beneath on the pavement. That is why the council's preferred clean-up method is whole paving-slab clean up, which not only removes the gum but cleans the whole surface, so that it is not left spotted.

Alun Michael: I assure the hon. Lady that I am well aware of the options—as I said earlier, I have stood in the street with operatives discussing the best way of clearing gum from our streets. But that has nothing whatever to do with the clause before us.
Miss McIntosh rose—

Eric Forth: Order. I was reaching that conclusion myself. I am being super-indulgent, as we have all just had our lunch break, but I ask the hon. Lady to wind up her remarks on clause 27.

Anne McIntosh: I conclude that the Minister and I agree to disagree. We are not responsible for the costly clean-up. I think that the clause should be struck from the Bill.

Alun Michael: I cannot allow that to pass—we do not agree to disagree. The hon. Lady is wrong. She has brought us some interesting information from Westminster city council; it sounds realistic, judging by my discussions with people at a policy and a practical level in local authorities, but it has nothing whatever to do with the Bill, and how much it costs to clear up the aftermath of litter is nothing to do with the clause. The hon. Lady should clean those issues from her mind as far as clause 27 is concerned.
It would be outrageous if the hon. Lady were to succeed in deleting the clause. Instead of clarifying that cigarette ends and chewing gum are litter, as everyone pretty well accepts now, deleting the clause would, in effect, say that they are not. What impact would that have? That is nearly as silly a political approach as the not-very-wisely drafted reasoned—or unreasoned, depending on which title we use—amendment brought forward on Second Reading. I vigorously resist any attempt to take the clause from the Bill.

Eric Forth: The Minister just spent a little time being deputy Chairman of the Committee. Let us move on.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Litter offence: fixed penalty notices

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in clause 19, page 15, line 36, at end insert—
 '(7A) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, allow a litter authority to which a fixed penalty is payable under this section to treat it as having been paid if a period of community service related to environmental protection is completed.'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 63, in clause 28, page 27, line 21, at end add—
 '(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, allow a local authority to which a fixed penalty is payable under this section to treat it as having been paid if a period of community service related to environmental protection is completed.'.

Sue Doughty: In principle, the giving out of fixed penalty notices is welcome; it has been recommended, as it immediately links the crime to the response that it is wrong. As we discussed earlier with regard to chewing gum, when we see a perpetrator committing a crime, someone should make that clear to them, there and then. Fixed penalty notices therefore have a use.
The purpose of the amendments is to identify when a financial penalty may not be the right penalty for a person on a particular income. Local authorities and others incur costs attempting to recover a penalty from someone who might not have been able to pay within the normal period. We propose that there should be other ways in which such people can meet their responsibilities—perhaps they can be given community service instead of a fixed penalty notice. The Law Society has already expressed concern about the use of fixed penalty notices. Were I, in a moment of aberration, to drop chewing gum—although I deny that I would ever do so—I could afford to pay a fixed penalty notice, although it might grieve me that I had to pay it. It would not greatly affect my ability to buy the basics for day-to-day living, although it might affect what I spent on other things. However, the financial situation of more deprived members of society might be made worse by the penalty. A fine of that the proposed level for someone on benefits is a huge proportion of their income, which should be spent on food, shelter, heating and the like. Although we, society—whose views were expressed in the consultation—and the Environment Audit Committee all agree that fines and the fact that dropping litter is a crime need to be made clear, some people would be disproportionately affected by the proposed penalty. 
We want to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to allow councils to impose community service orders instead. We want those orders to be related to environmental problems and antisocial behaviour, and to link them to the opportunity to clear  litter and graffiti. Councils often have rubbish-clearing events to give a much higher profile not only to the problems of rubbish, but to the fact that someone has to clear it up. There is nothing like being one of a rubbish-clearing team to bring home the impact of one's own and everyone else's litter-dropping. Time spent clearing up rubbish rather than doing something that they would prefer to do might bring home to people the fact that throwing away rubbish in the street is a bad thing. 
We therefore propose community service orders, which would have to be proportionate to the fine in a fixed penalty notice to which they would be an alternative. There needs to be consultation with local authorities and the probation services on the best way of doing that, so that people are made to pay for their crime but in the best way possible. We do not prescribe how that would be done, but we want the Government to consider the social impact of such penalties.

Alun Michael: I regard the amendment, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and moved by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), as an entirely constructive suggestion. However, introducing such provisions formally would lead us on to the hierarchy of penalties that are involved in court sentencing procedures. Also, the costs involved in supervising a community service order as an alternative to payment of a fine would fall on the public services. There would be problems with such an arrangement.
We must be clear in our sentencing system. I have been involved in the issue practically, both as a sentencer during the years I sat in the magistrates courts in Cardiff, and in the supervision of people under community service orders. I am a great fan of the idea of reparation, because it engages the offender in doing something about the outcome of their offence. However, one thing that I have learnt in dealing with criminal justice policy is that one must be clear what the sentence is, what the consequences are, how it will be administered and what the expectations of the person being sentenced are. We cannot stray into that area, almost accidentally, by accepting the amendment. 
None the less, I have been exercising my imagination and wondering whether it would be possible for local authorities that wanted to adopt the approach that the hon. Lady suggests to do so; I think that it would be. It would be open to local authorities to establish voluntary schemes for people to undertake work for the improvement of the environment—indeed, many local authorities have such schemes or co-operate with voluntary organisations in their areas in order to introduce them. A few weeks ago I spent some time with a group of volunteers in St. Mellons in my constituency. Some of them were from the hostel for the homeless in south Cardiff and some were from the Fairbridge project, which works with young people in the city. They are two excellent projects, albeit not ones that would normally be associated with litter, but they were running a scheme in which quite a few  people, some young, some older, were doing something useful, engaging socially and learning about litter and fly-tipping in consequence. 
If there were such a scheme, it would be possible for a local authority to make it clear that it would not serve a fixed penalty notice, or to offer to withdraw the notice, if the perpetrator was willing to put some time in. I do not think that we could create such a structure in the Bill, but I think that there is merit in the hon. Lady's suggestion, which might bring benefits, with a little lateral thinking locally,. The fixed penalty could, in effect, be the standard penalty, which would allow the offender to avoid going to court, but other options might be offered.

Matthew Green: May I clarify one point? If a council issues a fixed penalty notice, will it be entirely at the council's discretion to commute it into some form of payment in kind—reparation might be one possibility—rather than insisting on payment? That seems to be what the Minister is saying, but I want to be absolutely clear.

Alun Michael: The point is that the local authority has two alternatives: either it gets the money from the offender or it prosecutes; it is not a question of not pursuing the fixed penalty. It would be perfectly open to the authority to say, ''Ok, if you do a bit of work, we won't prosecute.'' The form of words used would be slightly different, but the end result might be the same. The point, however, is that there would be an opportunity to do something a little different. It would need quite a bit of thinking through in terms of the messages that were being given, but it would not be impossible for a local authority that really wanted to do so to put something constructive in place in its area to encourage engagement in clearing up, instead of taking people to court.
I am trying to respond positively and constructively to what is behind the amendment. There is, however, no possibility of accepting it, because it would muddle the fixed penalty notice with sentences of the court and the hierarchy of ways of dealing with offenders through the formal court and criminal justice system. However, there might be something in the proposal that a local authority could pick up as a way of designing local provisions, which might have the benefits outlined by the hon. Member for Guildford, as well as benefits in terms of engagement and education about the impact of litter on an area. 
I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment, because even though I cannot accept the amendment, we do not disagree about wanting to achieve greater engagement and flexibility in dealing with offences. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that I am trying to meet her halfway and to be constructive about her suggestions.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his positive approach to the amendments. This is an important point. When the Environmental Audit Committee  produced its report ''Environmental Crime and the Court'', two concerns emerged loud and clear from witness after witness, and from the memorandums that the Committee received. The first, which is not relevant to this debate, was that people thought that the fines given in court were not high enough and that courts were not sentencing to the level that they were allowed to. Secondly, however, people were concerned that fines were sometimes a blunt instrument, which did not take account of income and ability to pay.
I very much appreciate the Minister's points and I shall withdraw the amendment, but before I do, I want to press him a little further. Given what he said about considering a more creative approach, when the Bill becomes law will he be able to incorporate in his guidelines something along the lines of our amendment and others that will be tabled later?

Alun Michael: It might be difficult formally to include in guidelines something that is not in the Bill, although one might find ways of signposting such suggestions. A community service order would be required for someone formally to undertake a period of community service, and of course it is open to the court to impose such an order instead of a fine when the person is prosecuted and taken before it. There is therefore an avenue in the criminal justice system by which one can reach the community service order. We encourage local authorities to consider imaginative schemes and to think laterally. We are trying to avoid putting new burdens on them, but working with them to make use of opportunities. Our discussions are not just about how we implement legislation, but about how we set legislation in the wider context of doing things differently and better, and of engaging the public, including those who offend. We are trying to create a better situation for the future. My answer to the spirit of what the hon. Lady is saying, rather than to the particulars, is yes.

Sue Doughty: I appreciate those comments, which go a long way to getting on the record the opportunities that are available to councils. We are not trying to make life over-arduous for councils, but in the end persistent offending is a cost to them, as is clean-up. We are all trying to obtain practical, common-sense solutions. I hope, as a result of this debate, that the Minister will take any opportunities available to use the guidance given to councils and to the courts to tell them that it is available. There is a slew of areas in which we are looking for legislative remedies to environmental crime, so anything further that the Government can do will be appreciated. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 19, page 16, line 7, after 'council', insert
'with accreditation under the Quality Council Scheme'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 72, in clause 19, page 16, line 24, after 'section', insert
'; or for conferring authorisation to give notices under this section onto his employees.'.

Sue Doughty: We touched on the content of amendment No. 69 on Second Reading, but we tabled it in Committee to elicit clarification and to ensure that the subject is clearly understood. We are concerned about parish councils—those that might not be fully elected and rely on co-option—that might take upon themselves responsibilities greater than they should reasonably be given. If we are to have democratically elected councils using powers in the Bill as proposed, that must go right down to parish level. We have looked at the accreditation within the quality council scheme and are recommending that that be incorporated.
 Amendment No. 72 deals with people who are not council employees. We are concerned that people who are employed by the council to carry out environmental services, such as waste contractors, are not telling people such as dustbin men, ''You actually have the ability to issue fixed penalty notices.'' The amendment is designed to obtain clarification about council employees and contractors; we hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that the provision does not mean that a council can discharge its responsibilities through its waste contractors. There should be greater clarity about which people the council might appoint to issue fixed penalty notices.

Alun Michael: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's explanation of her amendments and for making it clear that they are probing. I will respond in a similar manner.
I have some sympathy with the first amendment and the promotion of the quality parish and town council scheme. The scheme recognises the effort put into achieving qualifications and quality, and an essential part of achieving its requirements is to have elected councillors. The reference to quality councils is therefore entirely appropriate, but the provision is a little too restrictive to be in the Bill. I personally expect it to be the quality town and parish councils that take up the powers and that have the capacity to do so. I considered such an approach of limiting the provision to quality councils when we were looking at the design of the Bill, but concluded that that was not appropriate, partly because a quality council may be very small or very large, and the difference in capacity could make a difference. In discussions with the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, the general feeling was that a common-sense approach will be adopted: those councils that have the necessary employees and capacity will go for it. By and large, the councils that are ambitious to do the best for their local area are the ones that are going through the quality process. That is becoming increasingly popular and regarded as an encouragement by local authorities. 
The Bill allows regulations to be made. We envisage that they will prescribe the conditions that authorised officers of parish councils need to meet before issuing penalties. We undertake to look at the issues that the hon. Lady raises in relation to those regulations. The regulations can set out qualifying standards that have to be met before parish councils can retain the receipts from fixed penalties. Again, that will encourage parish  councils to achieve the higher standards. To complete the circle, achieving higher standards is best reflected in the award of quality status. 
The provision to prescribe conditions that have to be met by those authorised by parish councils to issue penalties applies to anybody who is authorised to issue a fixed penalty notice on behalf of parish councils, including employees of other bodies. I should make it clear that anyone who issues a fixed penalty notice on behalf of a parish council has to be authorised in writing to do so by the council itself. For that reason amendment No. 72 is unnecessary. 
I welcome the thrust of what is being said about those who undertake the work, who must be appropriate people and should be encouraged to be properly trained. However, the hon. Lady should not to be too dismissive of dustmen. My teacher at Sunday school in the chapel was a street cleaner and he was a wise and far-sighted man. The general public in Llandudno would have been well served had he been given these powers. Let us not be too dismissive of the individuals who might be given them.

Matthew Green: When the Minister is talking about the people a council can authorise, will he make it clear that the council cannot authorise its own elected members to issue fixed penalty notices? There appears to be nothing in the Bill that would stop a quality parish council giving the parish council chairman the ability to issue a fixed penalty notice. I hope that that will be ruled out in secondary legislation.

Alun Michael: Again, that is the sort of issue that we would cover in regulations. Undertaking executive duties would be confusing. The possibility had not crossed my mind. An individual might want those powers, but a council might take a rather different view, but I will look at that point in relation to the regulations. I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his response. On the subject of whether dustmen should be able to issue fines, I take his point about Sunday school teachers. I used to know a dustman who was a poet: he worked as a dustman in order to give himself time off to write poetry. Some of it was very good and some of it was set to music by Emerson, Lake and Palmer. None the less, it did not necessarily qualify him to give out fixed penalty notices. With the Minister's assurances in place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in clause 19, page 16, leave out lines 13 to 16.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 71, in clause 19, page 16, leave out lines 17 to 19.
No. 88, in clause 23, page 25, leave out lines 4 to 7. 
No. 89, in clause 23, page 25, leave out lines 8 and 9. 
No. 95, in clause 48, page 44, leave out lines 42 to 45. 
No. 96, in clause 48, page 44, leave out lines 46 to 48.

Sue Doughty: I think we can deal with the amendments fairly quickly. They are along the same lines as the previous group and relate to the contracting out of powers to issue fixed penalty notices to contractors and their employees—we are back to the dustmen, I am afraid.
We are seeking greater clarity. The powers in clause 48 are for dealing with offences relating to the collection of waste, so we consulted the Environmental Services Association, which is a body that often deals with waste collection and disposal. The ESA made it clear that its members do not want to have the power for their employees to issue fixed penalty notices. The association said that as currently worded, clause 48(10)(b) and (c) appear to allow refuse collectors, including employees of the association's members, to issue fixed penalty notices. 
Refuse collectors can have a role in offering advice to householders about their legal responsibilities and informing the local authority about badly littered areas. However, although the association recognised that co-ordination between waste contractors, local authorities and the Environment Agency could improve the enforcement of litter laws, it felt that that job should be done by full-time professionals employed by the local authority. The association wants consistency, although it is supportive of the general move and encouraged by the knowledge that the Government take the issue seriously. 
3 pm

Alun Michael: In so far as it is a question of people who are appropriate and have the appropriate training in issuing notices, I agree with the hon. Lady. We will make that very clear in guidance. The problem with the amendments is that they would prevent local authorities from authorising any subcontractor or the subcontractor's employees to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of various litter and waste offences on behalf of the local authority. We feel that it is important that local authorities can decide on the delivery of their services. The clause is consistent with that and with the Government's freedoms and flexibility policy for local authorities.
Local authorities, let us remember, will not be coming to this anew. They have a raft of experience of issuing fixed penalties. We would expect them to authorise only those subcontractors and their employees who are competent to undertake the work and for them to have the appropriate training. Who then undertakes the work for the local authority should be for the local authority to decide. 
The clauses will give local authorities greater power to take enforcement action, because they increase the number of officers who can take action against offenders. I take the point entirely that the job needs to be done professionally, but that does not necessarily mean that only a full-time professional can undertake such activity. What is important is that it is someone who is available and competent to do the work and who has the appropriate training for the specific issuing of notices. I am certainly at one with the hon. Lady in what I understand her to be calling for. We will indeed reinforce that in the guidance.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for that assurance. The amendment was designed to draw out those facts. We would have no problem with people who are trained to do that job, even though it is part of their other duties. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I want to clarify a couple of points. I understand that fixed penalty notices will either be set by statute or be subject to a national framework setting maximum and minimum levels. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the local authorities that will have to implement the provisions will be consulted before those levels are set. Does he intend to set out the detail in regulations? I am sure that he will have received representations that the fine levels are set too low to be effective. Will there be a default level?
According to the Library research paper, the default level is set at £75 in unspecified areas. Could the Minister be more specific about that? The note states: 
 ''The Bill enables local authorities to specify the amount of fixed penalty to be applied to an area.'' 
Will the default level be across the board? 
I understand that clause 19 will create a new offence of withholding or giving a false name and address to a litter officer. What fixed penalty will be applied to that? 
Parish councils and community councils will also be classified as litter authorities, which will give them the power to appoint authorised litter officers. Litter officers will no longer have to be employed by a litter authority. The Conservatives are champions of parish councils; we are delighted to see them involved as far as possible, but the Minister will recognise that parish council budgets are necessarily small, so it would be of some interest to the Committee to know how they are to be expected to pay. Who will the new litter wardens be? Will they be volunteers for the parish council, acting as litter wardens? What level of training will be given to them, and how will it be paid for?

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting a number of questions, which I am happy to answer. Some answers apply not just to clause 19 but to others. She is right to say that some parishes are very small; indeed, I made that point earlier. That is why this clause is permissive. There is no requirement to undertake action, but if the parish council feels that something is needed in their area, it is not totally dependent on the actions of the district council in order to tackle the problem. Let us also acknowledge that many parish councils and town councils have a lot of experience in that area of activity. They undertake the running of car parks and a variety of other roles in their localities, so they will not be totally devoid of experience.
As I said, when I discussed the provision with the National Association of Local Councils, it was very clear that it expected its members to approach the matter in a common-sense way. It said that it makes sense if there is a problem in their area for councils to  undertake such activities on their own behalf if they have the capacity to do so. Those are exactly the questions that it is sensible for us, having included the provision, to leave for them to decide.

Matthew Green: Are not the only parish and town councils that could take this on those that have employees? Most of the smaller parish councils only employ a clerk to take the minutes four times a year, and are unlikely even to be in a position to think about taking action. Doing so is limited by the size of the council, and that acts as a safeguard.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right, although I would not preclude the possibility of a number of councils employing somebody jointly. I came across one example in one of the national parks; a council had undertaken a positive initiative in conjunction with a couple of other villages, and it was working very well. They were proud of what they were doing. If people at a local level think that it is important enough to put energy and their limited resources into that, I am happy for them to do so. I am equally sure that, to a great extent, the issue will be self-policing and self-limiting by the capacity that people have. I would not entirely rule out a small council, but in general terms, the hon. Gentleman is right.
Most of the answers to the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) are straightforward. Yes, we shall be consulting the local authorities, and they will have an opportunity to comment, and levels will be set in regulations. She is right to point to the default fine level of £75. We want the flexibility for local authorities to go lower or higher than that if they want to. With fixed penalties, there is almost an element of self-regulation, in that if the fine is too high, people will say, ''All right, take me to court then.'' If the penalties are set at a level that people feel is inappropriate, we shall end up with more litigation, which is not the purpose of a fixed penalty notice. Whatever limits we set, I think that things will generally settle down. Some councils will be able to be highly effective by exercising flexibility. I do not want to put a figure on it, but we are certainly not talking about anything like the level 3 fine, which is up to £1,000. We are talking more about something in the order of £75 or £100. As I say, I hesitate even to mention figures, but I hope that that gives an idea of the order of fines. 
Should an individual fail to provide a name and address, they would be committing an offence and would be prosecuted for it. A fixed penalty notice would not be issued to them if they failed to provide a name and address; indeed, it would be difficult to so do because the whole point is that a name and address are needed in order to issue the penalty. The person would be taken down the prosecution route. It is important to do that, otherwise certain individuals who have little respect for authority will be tempted to put up two fingers to a request to provide their details. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Lady will feel able to support the clause standing part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Minister; it is helpful to know the default level and its implications. I should like to place on record the fact that many parish councils will find such action beyond their abilities, but I pay tribute to those whose councillors often act as wardens, giving flood alerts and doing all sorts of activity that one would not normally expect of them.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Failure to comply with notice: fixed penalty notices

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 19, line 13, at end insert
', and that person shall be made aware that a failure to pay could result in an increase in the penalty with its conversion into a court fine and liability to prosecution for the offence'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 52, page 19, line 32, at end insert—
 '( ) There will be a right of appeal against the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices.'.

Anne McIntosh: The amendments follow on closely from what the Minister said in his response to the debate on clause 19. He confirms that there will still be recourse to the courts, so these are probing amendments to elicit what facility there will be—particularly where new litter officers are acting as enforcement officers for the first time—to make an offender aware that a failure to pay a fixed penalty notice could result in an increase in the penalty. That penalty could be converted into a court fine and the offence liable to prosecution. We are extending the range of litter officers—that has just been confirmed—and many will be using these discretionary and permissive powers for the first time.
Is the Minister convinced that there will be a mechanism to ensure that an offender is made aware of the consequences of their actions, either of not paying the fixed penalty notice or of the ultimate threat of prosecution? Presumably the matter will still be subject to the right of appeal to a magistrate. In the spirit of helpfulness and co-operation that the Minister is coming to expect from Conservative members of the Committee, I suggest that we insert that there will still be right of appeal against the issuing of fixed penalty notices. We feel that it is important to state that in the Bill, rather than leaving it to pure chance. I hope that the Minister will feel able to support the amendment.

Nigel Evans: If people do not comply with the law and do not pay the penalty, it is only right that they be told that failure to pay could result in an increase in that penalty. The clear example, which I think is punitive, is the congestion charge. The charge is £5, but if someone fails to comply, it automatically goes up to £50—10 times the amount originally charged. Ten times the amount is quite  punitive, particularly when many people simply forget. I declare an interest; on 23 December I forgot to pay. I am not bitter now; I am almost over it, but not quite. I cannot think of another example where a fine rises to 10 times the amount. [Interruption.] Crushing my car might do us all a favour.
If a person has broken the law and simply fails to pay the penalty, they should know that they are likely to pay an increased fine—whether it is £75 or £100. I hear what the Minister says about wanting to get away from taking everyone to court and that is why we are looking at reasonable fines. I fully understand that. When people have dropped gum or litter but are not prepared to pay the fine because they think that it is unreasonable, they will clearly end up in court unless they have good cause. Court time will be involved. People should rightly face an increased charge when they have been convicted of deliberately dropping litter or gum and have refused to pay the fine.

Alun Michael: Again, this matter comes under appropriate training and guidance and ensuring that all the arrangements are in place. The hon. Lady made it clear that she wanted to be reassured on those points. I am happy to give that reassurance. It would be unthinkable that the notice should not include a warning of what might follow were the fixed penalty notice not accepted. Amendment No. 51 seems to be based on a possible misunderstanding. If a fixed penalty notice is issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and is not paid, there is no automatic increase and it is not posted as a fine.
A fixed penalty notice offers an alternative to prosecution. If it is not paid, the local authority may prosecute for the original offence. That is not automatic; nor is any increase. If the individual goes to court, they might get a fine that is higher than the fixed penalty notice level. They might end up with a lower fine. It is a matter of chance. It is also a matter of a lot more administration and public money in order to reach the outcome. That is one reason for setting the right level and for ensuring that magistrates have a good understanding of the way that the local authority's policy is being developed.

Nigel Evans: I hope that the Minister has talked to the Home Office about this in view of the fines that are doled out now for a number of offences involving drunkenness. Does he know how many of those cases end up in court, or are the vast majority paid as fixed charges?

Alun Michael: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer off the top of my head. I am happy to check the situation and to write to him. There is a degree of variation in different parts of the country. That is where we come to the interface between cultures and people's expectations and understandings. People should understand, first, that they should not drop litter, and secondly, that if they do so they will be fined.  They should know what the level will be. It has to act as a discouragement. We are starting to move towards that.
Amendment No. 52 is not necessary because no one is forced to accept a fixed penalty notice in the first place. If they accept a notice and then wish that they had not, they can simply choose not to pay it. If they choose not to pay, it is for the local authority to decide whether to prosecute for the events that led to the issuing of the notice. Either of those courses will result in the issuing authority taking a decision on whether to prosecute for the original offence. 
It is important to understand that clause 22 introduces fixed penalty notices for failure to comply with litter clearing notices in clause 20 and street litter control notices in clause 21. Local authorities will be given the power to set the level of the fixed penalty in their area. That may be subject to limitations in regulations made by the Secretary of State in England or by the National Assembly for Wales. Where the power is not exercised, the amount of the fixed penalty will be £100. 
This is a simple improvement in the way that fixed penalty notices can be used to good effect at local level. I hope that the assurances that I have given will satisfy hon. Members on that point.

Anne McIntosh: We have had an interesting and helpful little debate. In the light of the assurances and explanation that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I seek a simple clarification and make a request of the Minister. Section 90 of the excellent Environmental Protection Act 1990—the Committee will recall that it was introduced under the previous Conservative Administration—provides for the designation of litter control areas. Subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State may ''prescribe descriptions of land'' that may be designated as litter control areas. Under section 94, the Secretary of State may prescribe by order the kinds of premises to which street control notices can be issued, but they do not include the vicinity of office buildings. Therefore, local authorities such as Westminster city council often cannot apply such measures in cases where they would be most effective, such as when smoking litter proliferates on the forecourt of an office building in which staff are subject to a smoking ban.
Does the Minister accept that one possible solution would be for the vicinity of offices to be added to the list of types of land to which street litter control notices applied? Better still, we could remove the need for the Secretary of State to approve the scheduled types of land to which they applied. I hope that the Minister sees what we are getting at. We have had more of a discussion about chewing gum, but clause 27 and, in particular, clause 22 obviously apply in this case. Metropolitan and urban councils, such as Westminster city council, are concerned that we deal  with such areas in the vicinity of office buildings, which the Secretary of State may not currently deem to be premises.

Alun Michael: I think that I can satisfy the hon. Lady on that point. Offices are premises, so they are potentially covered. That can be made clear by regulations; there is no need to amend the Bill to do so.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Fixed penalty notices: amount of fixed penalty

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 27, line 13, at beginning insert
 'Following consultation with local authorities and other interested parties'. 
The purpose of the amendment is to seek confirmation from the Minister as to whether there will be full consultation with the local authorities concerned and with other interested parties.

Alun Michael: I can confirm that we would have to consult local authorities and other interested parties before, in England, the Secretary of State and, in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales, made any regulations in respect of the local authorities' powers to vary.

Anne McIntosh: That is extremely helpful. In the spirit of helpfulness, could the Minister further define who the other interested parties will be? Will they include bodies such as Network Rail, Metronet, Transport for London and Tubelines, which also have to apply the graffiti-removing powers?
Our reason for tabling the amendment parallels our reason for tabling an earlier amendment, which was suggested by, among others, Network Rail. It was generally felt that provision for consultation was written into the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and that there would be scope to provide sufficient time for the removal of graffiti. As with litter, the sums involved in removing graffiti are very large, and the Minister will be aware of the work that is carried out in that regard. 
I simply seek confirmation, therefore, that those additional bodies, and not just local authorities, will be consulted. Many of us lose sight of the fact that it is not only local authorities that are responsible for removing litter and graffiti. Evidence to the Transport Select Committee highlighted the millions of pounds that it costs Transport for London every year to remove graffiti from its trains and stations, and we had similar evidence from Network Rail, Metronet and Tubelines. It is incumbent on the Minister to confirm whether consultation will extend to those bodies, because the policy on graffiti removal affects them equally and has huge cost implications for them.

Alun Michael: The other interested parties might well vary from place to place. For instance, the rail organisations to which the hon. Lady referred might not be appropriate interested parties in a town or village that did not have a railway service. I say that not to trivialise the issue, but to explain why we do not want to go into detail. We want common sense to apply in a public consultation. That relates specifically to consultation with local authorities, because they are the key organisations.
The clause is important because local authorities will be given the power to set the level of fixed penalties for graffiti and fly-posting. That will enable them to set the level in response to local circumstances, and that fits in with our agenda of giving local authorities freedoms and flexibilities. The same is true of their power to accept reduced amounts for early payment, which ensures that payments are made promptly, thus reducing the number of cases requiring resolution in court. 
I assure the hon. Lady that the amendment is unnecessary because we shall ensure that there is full consultation on all secondary legislation resulting from the Bill. I am tempted to point out that the amendment covers only one regulation-making power in the Bill and that it is not clear why that one has been singled out, but that might provoke the hon. Lady to table another lot of amendments, so I shall take it that this is a representative amendment. With that explanation, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: It has been an interesting and helpful debate, and in view of the assurances that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I want to raise the vexatious issue of persistent fly-posting and to tease out from the Minister whether he believes that the clause and the £75 default penalty that it sets will actually deal with that issue. Often, such penalties are set far too low, and the cost to the offender is far too cheap. In some cases, the penalties for those convicted of fly-posting are so low that it is significantly cheaper for companies to fly-post and pay fines than to pay for legitimate advertising space.
It is frustrating for city councils—again, Westminster city council springs to mind—that they have no sooner removed fly-posting, which is often part of the commercial operation of a company trying to set up a business on the cheap rather than the actions of an individual, than it is repeated. From March 2002 to March 2004, Westminster city council brought more than 60 successful prosecutions for fly-posting against companies. The penalties varied between £75 and £5,000, although that was an exceptional one-off case. If we compare that with the cost of advertising space in central London bus  shelters, which ranges from £100 to £500 a week, we can see why once a fly-posting campaign has been removed the company simply goes back and repeats the exercise. 
Does the Minister accept that if fines remain below the indictable offence threshold of £8,000, fly-posting will continue to stand outside the range of offences that can lead to a company director being disqualified? Fines well above that level are required if legal process is to provide a disincentive to fly-posting. Fines for fly-posting need to be far higher to avoid that cynical disregard for the law. 
There is general concern that the penalty does not fit the crime. It may not give the right message to those who are flouting the law.

Alun Michael: I think that I can satisfy the hon. Lady on her points. Fines for fly-posting are a different issue. Fixed penalty notices can be used only to deal with the people who put up the posters rather than the principles or companies that benefit from that activity.
The organisers of fly-posting or those benefiting from it must be prosecuted. If they are convicted, they are subject to a level 4 fine of up to £2,500. I am conscious of the fact that a number of cities have developed good practice over recent times. I have spoken to representatives of two or three in the course of the past year. Birmingham, Manchester and Cardiff are three that have sought to identify where companies benefit from fly-posting, which looked too trivial at the local level, and have gone to the main companies. A fine of £2,500, if it is added to over a period of time, and the fact that naming and shaming then starts to have its effect seem to have encouraged a constructive dialogue between many of the large companies that are involved and those who are instigating the activity. The case of those who instigate or benefit from the activity and that of those who carry out the fly-posting are quite different. That is where the fixed penalty notice will come in. I hope that that will help to take us some way in gaining agreement.

Nigel Evans: I cannot for the life of me remember whether a matter that has concerned many people has been included under other legislation—that is the insertion of cards—not posters as such—in telephone boxes, where people advertise all sorts of trades; I will not go into greater detail than that. Has that matter already been covered, or will it be covered under this legislation?

Alun Michael: I hesitate to put on the record my understanding, but I better had and I will then correct it if I am wrong. I believe that that issue was dealt with under previous antisocial behaviour legislation. I understand precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
As far as the amount being set is concerned, if one sees it in terms of the perpetrator rather than those who benefit from the activity the level is proportionate. In any event, we are trying to allow a degree of flexibility, which will be based on the experience of  local authorities. Local authorities told us that fly-posting is more of a problem in some places, where people benefit more from it. Urban areas, larger cities and places such as Westminster obviously come to mind. The flexibility allows for a differential depending on local circumstances. With that explanation, I hope that we will gain the support of the Committee. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 - Fixed penalty notices: authorised officers

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 27, leave out lines 40 to 42.
The amendment relates to a subject that the Minister referred to earlier: authorised officers being given adequate training. We seek to strike out from clause 30 for probing purposes the lines defining an authorised officer as 
''an employee of the authority who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purpose of giving notices under section 43(1)''. 
Will the Minister confirm whether, when that authority in writing is given, there will also be provision for at least a minimum amount of training in respect of the power to require a name and address under clause 28 and the power relating to fixed penalty notices? Will there be a specific direction as to how authorised officers are to act in that regard?

Alun Michael: For authorised officers under any aspect of the clause, whether employees of the authority under proposed new section 47(1)(a) of the 2003 Act, other persons under paragraph (b) or employees of another person under paragraph (c), the training would be exactly the same. They would be people who understood what they were doing and who had the appropriate training. I wonder whether the hon. Lady can help me. I do not understand why she wants to delete the lines referring to employees of the local authority, which would mean that an authority could authorise other people to undertake the work, but not its own employees.

Anne McIntosh: I am really trying to establish whether the police and officers of the Environment Agency will also be involved in issuing fixed penalty notices. Can only an employee of the authority do so, or can a police officer, community support officer or an officer acting with the authority of the Environment Agency do so? I understand that those persons, particularly Environment Agency officers, would currently deal with the removal of fly-posters. Will that continue to be the case?

Alun Michael: What the clause allows is fairly clear. It defines an ''authorised officer''. First, it could be an employee of the authority, but not just any old employee; it must be someone who is authorised in writing for the purpose of giving notices. As we have  said, we will, in regulations or in guidance as appropriate, indicate the training that we expect people to have to be able to undertake that activity.
The second element is on page 28 in proposed new section 47(1)(b). The easiest thing is to read what it says. It refers to 
''any person who, in pursuance of arrangements made with the authority, has the function of giving such notices and is authorised in writing by the authority to perform that function''. 
That draws pretty widely the category of those who could undertake the work, whether the arrangement happened to be a contract with a company or an arrangement with another public body or even, conceivably, a non-governmental or voluntary organisation. 
The third element is 
''any employee of such a person who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purpose of giving such notices''. 
In other words, if an organisation does work for a council—that would generally involve a contractual relationship—its employees could be authorised to undertake the work. That seems pretty comprehensive. Subsection (2) would give power to the appropriate person—we come back again to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales, respectively—to 
''by regulations prescribe conditions to be satisfied by a person before a parish or community council may authorise him in writing for the purpose of giving notices under section 43(1).'' 
Those requirements would deal with the issue of whom it is appropriate to allow to issue notices, and what training is required.

Matthew Green: Does the Minister share my bafflement that the Conservatives appear to want to allow councils to enable virtually anyone but a council employee to issue fixed-penalty notices? Paragraphs (b) and (c) would enable the council to authorise somebody other than its employees to do so, but paragraph (a), which the Conservatives would delete, is about council employees. I am somewhat baffled, and I am sure that the Minister shares my bafflement.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes robustly the point that I made more gently to the hon. Member for Vale of York in an intervention. He is right, and I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: I explained myself at some length. I take it that Environment Agency officers continue to be authorised to remove fly-posting because the Minister did not deny that, although he was not terribly clear. My amendment was, to all intents and purposes, a probing amendment.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady should note that that is permitted.

Anne McIntosh: I presume that the Minister means that the status quo will pertain. With that affirmation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Controls on free distribution of printed matter

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 20, leave out lines 25 and 26.
A situation that we have had in Guildford illustrates the points on which we seek clarity. This is a probing amendment that is, on the face of it, simple and straightforward, although in practice there might be further complications. In the local government elections of the year before last, a local business man created his own political party. It was generally felt locally, and it was entrenched in his manifesto, that he thought that the Conservatives would give him a better planning deal than the Liberal Democrats. He had aspirations to build a large casino and various other things. 
In fairness to the Conservatives, I should say that there is no indication that they had ever said that they would give him a better answer on planning than the Liberal Democrats had. However, the business man formed a political party—Trinity—that campaigned in marginal wards to try to drive in a wedge, so that Liberal Democrat seats would be lost. I bring the matter up because that individual regularly takes the council to court for everything possible. That is why I seek clarity. 
That person runs a political party—from time to time, as the need occurs—and is a local business man, pursuing business interests. He may also be running a campaign to open a football stadium, which may be connected with his desire to set up a casino. We could have only a very blurred idea of what would go on his leaflets. In other words, he might have one piece of paper, but be caught by others when he is issuing leaflets for his very large nightclub in the middle of Guildford—another thing that he gets up to.

Nigel Evans: I seek further clarity on this as well. I know that a number of people put out what could be termed political leaflets outside election times. They contain advertisements for all sorts of things, which I assume are to the benefit of those parties. They would fall foul of this proposal would they not?

Sue Doughty: That is a very helpful intervention. I believe that the answer is yes. If the Trinity party were to put out printed matter containing a slogan, such as ''The best thing for town planning'', ''Free drinks at The Drink on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays'' or whatever it might be, that would precisely illustrate the problem.

Nigel Evans: I am not talking about people who invent political parties, but about traditional political parties that utilise advertisements from local business men. Without the funding such parties perhaps would not be able to distribute their political literature in the first place. I am thinking about the Liberal Democrats as much as any other party.

Sue Doughty: I quite accept that point. I have seen such things on literature from the three political parties that I regularly come across in addition to Trinity, which appears and disappears on a regular basis. We tabled a probing amendment and recommended a deletion because the position is untenable. We look forward to the Minister telling us how we could get round the problem.

Alun Michael: I am sorry to break it to the hon. Lady, but it is not always possible to solve every problem in legislation. Legitimate political activity almost invariably has a fringe. There is a great danger of trying to cut the fringes off and damaging the mainstream of political activity.
I can understand the hon. Lady wanting to raise her local issues and doing so with a probing amendment. If it were a serious amendment, I would quite robustly say that it would be unthinkable to accept it. The purpose of the exception is to ensure that the human rights of individuals and their legitimate political and democratic activities are not affected by the provisions. 
When we started talking about the provision and learning from the experience in London of trying to avoid excessive free literature, I was worried that it might be difficult to phrase the clause in a way that would protect rights. I believe that we have achieved that protection. Consultation raised the same concern that immediately came to my mind, which was that the control of free literature distribution could impinge on the freedom of speech and both religious and political canvassing. 
 By allowing the exemptions, we protect the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. They are enshrined under the European convention on human rights and, now, in our law under the Human Rights Act 1998. Even if they were not enshrined there, most of us would say immediately that we do not want to see a restriction on political and religious debate. That would be implied by the proposed deletion from the Bill. We must put up with some things in order to maintain the integrity of our political structures. 
 I understand what the hon. Lady means about campaign advertisements. Somebody stood in one general election under the title of New Labour before we wisely took control of Government and inserted clauses to stop that sort of thing happening. As she might imagine, I was in support of that measure when we started to draft it at the Home Office. 
We cannot solve all problems and we must be careful that we do not go too far. I have sympathy with the hon. Lady. Everybody involved in legitimate political activity must do all they can to make it clear where the boundaries are. They should not seek individual, personal or party advantage through these types of intervention. This matter is down to the way we conduct ourselves. It would be extremely dangerous to remove the exemption from the Bill.

Sue Doughty: I have every sympathy with what the Minister is saying. If it were a case of just trying to get some clarity between the one and the other, I would  fully accept what he is saying. The reality is that the clause is meant to deal with people who, for example, hand out literature outside a nightclub every Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. The stuff gets thrown on the ground. We are trying to work out the exceptions. Given that the main line of business of the individual in question is nightclubs and bars and the promotion of them, and that he is one of those whom the clause will affect directly, his instant get out is to say, ''Trinity party''.

Alun Michael: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Lady. If someone purported to put out religious information or political material but was not really doing so—in other words, if they were promoting a business—it would be for the court to decide, as it often is, on the boundaries. The fact that the Bill does not deal with the question explicitly does not mean that someone can get away with claiming to represent a political party.

Sue Doughty: I take that point, but I am pressing for clarity from the Minister—because our debate will go down on the record—in identifying what the court would do in such a case. The person in question might say in his defence, ''Oh, no, it is Trinity party; it is just that there is an advert for the nightclub.'' Those issues come to court eventually, and I predict such a court case.

Alun Michael: I offer a final thought; if an individual claimed in defence that he was putting out political material, it would be for the prosecution to show that that was not true, and for the court to make a judgment. Often when such issues are discussed in theoretical terms it sounds as if it might be easy for someone to get away with breaking the law, but when the evidence is looked at objectively by a court it becomes clear whether something is on the wrong side of the line. We cannot solve the individual case that the hon. Lady has raised this morning unless we table an amendment to insert the formula ''political parties, except for'' the one that she has a problem with. That would be making the Bill a little too specific.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I should not want to take exception to the activities of one party more than another; the case was a specific one. The Minister's comments about how the court might deal with the matter are helpful. If he can provide any further clarification on Report we should welcome that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 21, line 10, leave out 'and'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 76, in page 21, line 11, at end insert
'; and 
(c) post a notice on its proposal on the internet.'. 
No. 79, in page 21, line 27, leave out 'and'. 
No. 80, in page 21, line 28, after 'land', insert '; and 
(c) post a notice of its decision on the internet for the duration of the order.' 
No. 82, in page 21, line 41, after 'land', insert '; and 
(c) post a notice of any revocation on the internet.'.

Sue Doughty: These amendments are much more simple. There is a typo in amendment No. 76; the first instance of the word ''on'' should be ''of''.
We are interested in how people are to get the information that they need about what information they can hand out and where it is legitimate to do so. A lot of young people get involved in handing out literature, sometimes for their own projects and sometimes because they are paid to do it. It is a first port of call for them. Sometimes they get together as a group—they may be students—and book a club and promote their own night. 
They tend to know what goes on by consulting the internet, although they are less likely to read the local paper. They might be helping to distribute fliers at a club, by standing outside one that plays the same sort of music that they will play at their event. They need to be able—particularly if that is happening not in their council area but in the next borough or town—to understand what is legitimate there and what is not. By far the easiest way for them to find the correct information and avoid falling foul of the Bill would be to consult the council's website.

Alun Michael: I take the point that as technology develops there are other ways of communicating information that are distinct from the traditional requirements. However, I would suggest that the matter is one of best practice. There is a requirement to be met, so it would be minimum practice for information to be provided on the local authority's own website. Otherwise, it is difficult to know exactly where such information should be put, in order to ensure that it is there for those looking for it. There are other ways of communicating, such as press notices, local radio, voluntary organisations and so on, all of which may be appropriate in various circumstances.
We ought to maintain a light touch, ensure a sensible minimum requirement and encourage local authorities through best practice increasingly to use other channels of communication, as people begin to use them more and more. Of course, many people still do not use electronic means of communication—I cannot think that there are any in this Room, Mr. Forth, but you never know. Posting a notice on the internet would be a perfectly reasonable supplement to the minimum requirement, but not something that we would need to include in the Bill, so I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Sue Doughty: We are just concerned that often young people do not read newspapers and that newspapers themselves are sometimes extremely parochial. I take the Minister's point that the matter is down to best practice and I hope that local authorities will take note of the advice that he has provided. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 21, line 15, leave out '28' and insert '42'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 78, in page 21, line 19, leave out '14' and insert '28'.
No. 83, in page 22, line 5, after 'paragraph', insert 
'must be given in writing by an authorised officer of the authority and'. 
No. 84, in page 22, line 11, after 'distribution', insert '; 
(e) by requirement to clear any litter resulting from the material distributed'. 
No. 85, in page 22, leave out lines 16 to 20. 
No. 86, in page 23, line 43, after 'may', insert ', after 28 days,'. 
No. 87, in page 24, line 6, after 'person', insert 
', or any such person under whose employ that person was distributing printed matter,'.

Sue Doughty: Again, the amendments are clarifying amendments. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 concern the time scale. The main problem is the 14 days for objecting to a proposed order. In my area there is a weekly newspaper, but someone might be away when it comes out and might not read the small print at the back when they return and catch up with the news, as they are getting on with their lives again. Such things take a while and people have to ensure that they have seen the notice. That is why we want to extend the period, to ensure that everyone has a chance to see the notice. Once the proposal is discovered, the further extension to 42 days proposed by amendment No. 77 will give people a chance to formulate and submit any objections, which is a matter of practical expediency.
Amendment No. 83 proposes that someone who is given consent to distribute printed matter in a designated area may be required to provide written evidence of that consent. Although paragraph 3(6) of proposed schedule 3A to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that an authority can impose a requirement to provide written evidence of consent on demand, the best way to avoid any misunderstanding is to ensure that the authority provides written consent in all cases. 
Amendment No. 84 concerns clearing litter resulting from material distributed. Given that the powers are designed to tackle litter caused by printed matter, our proposal is to give councils important additional powers over the limitations that they could place on the consent to distribute matter in a controlled area. Councils may wish to have that freedom, which amendment No. 84 would give them. 
Amendment No. 85 is a probing amendment. It appears that councils are to be allowed full discretion on granting consents anyway, so why is paragraph 3(4) of proposed schedule 3A to the 1990 Act necessary? We would like the Minister to explain what sort of people are being targeted. Is the intention to stop people who are doing direct marketing for profit from gaining consent? That might be reasonable, but we return to the issue of young people promoting concerts, clubs, exhibitions and other events for all sorts of purposes, perhaps as part of a college or school  project. The requirements on such young people are difficult—one strike and they are out, in trouble for ever more because they made a mistake when they were not up to speed. We would like young people to learn the lesson and understand what the law is, but we think that the Bill as drafted is a little heavy-handed. 
Amendment No. 86 again concerns the problem of the time scale and allows a reasonable period for a person whose name and address is not known to contact the authorities to claim the printed matter before it is destroyed. 
With amendment No. 87, we are thinking about vulnerable people, often young, who are employed to hand out flyers. Those who work for direct marketing companies generally do so only for the money. The job is not one that people do because they see a career in handing out flyers. Basically, they want some pocket money. We are concerned that such people might not know that they could receive a fixed penalty. Somebody might give them a job handing out flyers about a massive golf sale around the corner and then find it easy to take advantage of them, avoiding liability themselves. 
We should also bear in mind that such employers might not be local. They might move from town to town running golf sales, Persian carpet sales or other ad hoc events. Such people can disappear and leave whomsoever they had hired for a minimum wage to be fined and face the music. We are therefore concerned that the provisions might be a little heavy-handed on people who are basically innocent.

Alun Michael: I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Lady, but with regard to amendments Nos. 77 and 78 the slogan that springs to mind is ''Liberals do things slower''.

Nigel Evans: If at all.

Alun Michael: I see that I have agreement in some parts of the Room at least.
The problems that we are concerned about can build up in a fairly short period. To extend the period from 28 days to 42 days as a minimum time between giving notice and the coming into force of the designation order seems entirely out of proportion. It should be borne in mind that the local authority has the capacity to revoke such an order at any time. Indeed, it quite often happens that an order is put in place but people then have second thoughts. However, the proposals would prevent a local authority from acting reasonably swiftly on the powers in the Bill. I will resist the amendment, because the proposed increases in the notification objection time would hamper the ability of local authorities to control free literature distribution in an area that was already suffering from serious blight. 
Amendment No. 83 is unnecessary because, taking all the relevant provisions into account, it is clear that the notification must be in writing. I also have  problems with the term ''authorised officer'', because I think that it assumes that amendments Nos. 88 and 89 have been accepted. 
Amendment No. 84 would allow consent to be accompanied by a requirement to clear any litter resulting from the material distributed. That amendment is not necessary either, because paragraph 3(5) of proposed schedule 3A to the 1990 Act would give the local authority the power to impose such conditions as it considers ''necessary or desirable'' to protect the designated land from defacement. That could include a requirement to clear litter produced as a result of distribution. There is no disagreement with what the hon. Member for Guildford is trying to achieve, but it is already covered in the Bill. 
Amendment No. 85 would remove the ability of a local authority to refuse consent if a person had been convicted of an offence or had been issued with a fixed penalty notice for distributing free literature. If that amendment were accepted, it would remove from the Bill the ability of local authorities to refuse consent to those with a history of abusing those provisions. I cannot agree to that. Local authorities are not required to refuse consent, but they should have the right not to give it to individuals who have distributed free literature illegally in the past, thereby completely disregarding the requirements on them in law. 
Amendment No. 86 would make changes to the procedure for returning printed matter that has been seized from a person who has committed a free literature offence. When the name and address of a person is not known, proposed schedule 3A allows the printed matter to be disposed of or destroyed by the authority, but amendment No. 86 prevents it from doing so until 28 days have passed, which means additional storage if there is a problem. The amendment is unnecessary because the requirement to return the printed material under section 6(4) and the ability to dispose of, or destroy it, under section 6(5) take effect only at the conclusion of proceedings for the offence or at the end of the period in which proceedings for the offence may be instituted. That acts as a safeguard against the material being disposed of or destroyed before the person from whom it was seized has had the chance to apply for its return. 
Amendment No. 87 would change the description of a person on whom a fixed penalty notice can be served for a free literature offence so as to preclude the employer of the person from distributing the material. The hon. Member for Guildford is right about the need to be proportionate; we are resisting the amendment because the purpose of fixed penalty notices is to allow immediate enforcement action against a person who distributes free literature. Anyone who causes another person to distribute free literature, such as an employer, also commits an offence under proposed new paragraph 1(2). However, someone undertaking such activity should not be offered the alternative of paying a fixed penalty; they should be prosecuted. The proportionate response is to prosecute under that provision.

Sue Doughty: I will not go through the answers point by point, as time is short. I understand the Minister's point on amendment No. 85. The clause states:
 ''Consent need not be given to any applicant''. 
Is the Minister is saying that these things will be proportionate and will not encourage councils to say that someone who has done something once, for pocket money, will not be able to earn pocket money occasionally again because they were in the wrong before? Does the Minister expect councils to be sensible and proportionate?

Alun Michael: I assure the hon. Lady that that is what I am suggesting. It is difficult to write proportionality into primary legislation, but I want to ensure that local authorities have the power to deal with a repeat offender. The amendment would remove that capacity.

Sue Doughty: In that case, as the Minister has clarified the position, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I want to press the Minister for clarification on clause 23, which makes it an offence to distribute, commission or pay for the distribution of free printed material in an area designated by a local authority without consent. It has been put to us that the existing powers available to Westminster City council under section 4 of the London Local Authorities Act 1994 have proved insufficient. It seeks the Minister's agreement to recommend that they be developed further to make them effective and to enable their successful extension beyond London. The council believes that the free literature distribution controls have proved to be ineffective, because operators can continue to distribute free literature from private forecourts, many of which are contiguous with and largely indistinguishable from the public footway. Does the Minister know about that problem, and will he look kindly on that suggestion for dealing with it?
I also run past the Minister the conclusion that he reached on page 39 in his Department's regulatory impact assessment, which sets out the quantification of costs and benefits. It states that 
''the total set-up cost to local authorities would be between £450,000 and £750,000; and taking account of the costs of enforcement and the cleaning costs saved, on an annual basis there would be somewhere between a net cost of £37,500 and a net cost saving of £525,000.'' 
It concludes: 
 ''This illustrates that it is not certain whether there would be a net financial cost or benefit to this measure. However, it is important to note that this is a power that Local Authorities would choose whether or not to use. They would only do so where there is an overall net benefit to using it and this is likely to be in key areas where free literature litter is a particular problem and it is a priority of the authority to deal with it.'' 
That is quite a negative conclusion to draw, and points to the fact that the Bill is very unlikely to meet its major objectives. Will the Minister satisfy us on those two points?

Alun Michael: We certainly drew on the experience in London when designing the legislation, and discussed it with local authorities that applied the London provisions, as well as with other local authorities that strongly supported the provision of these powers more widely across England and Wales, so they are not precisely the same as the requirements set down in the local government legislation that gave the powers to London.
I am always open to considering suggestions, but the problem of forecourts to which the hon. Lady referred has not been drawn especially to my attention. Perhaps she can give me further and better particulars. 
In general, the approach is not at all negative, but extremely positive. It is to extend the powers and the range of options available to local authorities with the message, ''If this helps you, use it, but do not feel that you have to if it does not suit your local circumstances.'' Local authorities have generally been very supportive of the greater flexibility and simplification of various parts of the Bill, which enable them to do what they have been doing up to now but with fewer bureaucratic obstructions, at less cost and with greater ability to nip things in the bud. That, of course, is what we want to achieve. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Extension of graffiti removal notices to fly-posting

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 31, page 28, line 20, leave out
'which is affixed without authorisation to any surface,' 
and insert 'affixed to any surface— 
(a) without the consent of the surface owner; and 
(b) without deemed or express consent under Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 (as amended) or which is an advertisement to which Part II and III of the Regulations do not apply under Regulations 3(2).'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 60, in clause 31, page 28, line 20, leave out from 'affixed' to end of line 21 and insert
'to any surface without authorisation of the owner of that surface.'.

Anne McIntosh: I see why the Government have provided a definition of fly-posting, but it is ambiguous. The clause states that a fly poster is an advertisement,
''announcement or direction which is affixed without authorisation to any surface,''.
To whose authorisation does the clause refer? Surely it would be inappropriate for a council to have to authorise the use of notices on, for example, BT's telegraph poles to inform residents of local work to be undertaken in their street. The Bill builds on parts of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and town and country planning regulations, and the amendment seeks to expand the definition of fly-posting to include advertisements allowed by that Act but which do not require authorisation. 
Without the amendment, the risk is that all advertisements, announcements and directions that have not been authorised by the council could be deemed to be fly-posting. If that were widely interpreted, it could include paid advertising in telephone kiosks. In BT's view, kiosk advertising contributes to the long-term viability of the public pay phone network. The Minister will be aware that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is consulting on the long-term future of certain pay phones across the country, and particularly in rural areas such as the Vale of York. Therefore, it is important to me how such pay phones, which provide important local benefits, will be paid for. 
The Minister will probably wish to confirm that his definition endeavours to catch fly-posting advertisements that were not allowed by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or the 1992 regulations, rather than advertisements not authorised by a council. BT's view is that our amendment clarifies the definition of fly-posting to include advertisements which are allowed by the 1990 Act but which do not require authorisation. Without explicit reference to the 1990 Act and the regulations, the concern is that legitimate advertisements on BT pay phones that currently do not require authorisation by the council could be considered fly-posting. BT's pay phones business is declining, and one of the revenue streams to ensure long-term viability of the network in the countryside is advertising on kiosks. 
The Minister will have seen the representation from ENCAMS, his Department's charitable body. It believes that a better fly-posting definition would be that used in its own annual local environmental quality survey—it is not totally impartial about that. The definition is as follows: 
''any printed material and associated remains informally or illegally fixed to any structure. It excludes formally managed and approved advertising hoardings and valid, legally placed signs and notices. It includes any size of material from small stickers up to large posters—often advertising popular music recordings, concerts and other events.'' 
In view of representations from ENCAMS, why did the Minister prefer his own definition? 
Westminster city council raised the problem of over-posting. It is particularly pertinent in the present context.

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McIntosh: I would like to finish my point first.

Matthew Green: What I want to say is pertinent.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself for a moment, if he can.
Over-posting is a particular problem in London, and it is a pertinent subject in the current context. Where there is a delay in removing posters, a second fly-poster is often put up over the first one, which creates a vicious circle; there is then a delay in removing both the first and the second posters. 
Westminster city council's view is that subsection (3) does not address that. It is one of the 12 pilot authorities, and it has used the new power under the graffiti removal notices in sections 48 to 52 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. It considers that the additional means for the removal of fly-posting would be well used, but the process required for the pilot scheme is overlong and requires revision if it is to be effective.. Therefore, it requests that consideration be given to allowing the more rapid process that the city council is able to use by applying its local public service agreement stretch target. That relates particularly to the problem of over-posting.

Matthew Green: We have also tabled an amendment in this group, but before I talk about it, I should point out that what the hon. Lady has just spoken about is covered by amendment No. 61 to clause 34. The issue was raised with me by Westminster city council, and I am sure that the appropriate time to deal with the specific point of over-posting is when discussing clause 34.
Returning to clause 31, there is a potential difficulty with the definition of fly-posting, because it hinges on the words ''without authorisation''. We seek clarification from the Minister that ''without authorisation'' does not cover circumstances in which something has been put up with deemed, but not actual, planning consent. As the hon. Lady explained, there are a number of circumstances in which advertising—in some cases, hoardings—has deemed rather than absolute consent. 
The Minister could go further. Another set of circumstances, which I do not think he intends to be covered by the legislation, in which something might be deemed to have been put up without authorisation is the use of political posters on stakeboards during elections. In many parts of the country, such as in Birmingham, councils have set up byelaws dictating when posters can go up and when they should be taken down. However, many parts of the country, particularly rural areas, do not have any local laws governing the issue, in which case, putting up a stakeboard during an election period is technically a planning offence. 
Councils do not prosecute political parties because in order to prosecute, they have to give 28 days for the offence to be remedied. As an election period generally lasts for 28 days or less and political parties are good at taking posters down, councils know that it is pointless writing a letter telling them to take the posters down because they will come down at the end of the election.  However, such posters clearly do not have authorisation because they are technically a planning offence. 
I am sure that the Minister does not intend that local planning authorities can issue fixed penalty notices every time a stakeboard goes up. Given that about 3,500 are used in my constituency during a typical general election, that could be a large revenue raiser for local councils. It would not just be the Liberal Democrats paying the bill, but to a large extent the Conservative party and to a smaller extent the Labour party. I hope that he will clarify that the intention is not to issue fixed penalties to political parties using stakeboards where there are no local byelaws covering their use.

Nigel Evans: I also seek some clarification on one or two matters relating to the amendments, but I am almost compelled to say that the prospect of 3,500 fixed penalty notices being issued to the hon. Gentleman is good reason for retaining the provision and perhaps directing it towards that political party and not the party of truth and righteousness—the Conservative party.
A lot of fly-posting is done on a commercial basis. In my constituency, as in a number of rural areas, car boot sales on a Sunday are usually advertised on the Saturday night. Somebody goes around in a vehicle putting posters on lamp posts without any authorisation, and after the sale the posters generally, but not always, come down. I assume that that will be covered by the clause. 
I also have a problem with the word ''affixed''. Some advertisements may be freestanding on the side of a highway and not actually fixed to a hedge or anything else. I would welcome clarification on what ''affixed'' means in this context. 
Every Committee member will know about the increasingly prevalent use of advertisements on vehicles on farmland adjacent to motorways. I assume that that is not dealt with as fly-posting. Vehicles are used because they are mobile and can, in theory, be moved around, although in reality they never are. Has the Minister considered that? I can see the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment nodding, which shows that everybody knows that this is a specific problem—and if it is not addressed at some stage it will, perhaps, get worse or will become regularised.

Matthew Green: Do I take it from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would condemn any political party that used such mobile posters, months in advance of any election?

Nigel Evans: I am not going to get dragged down that path, because it sounds like a huge trap.
The problem is that such advertising is currently within the law, which is why people do it. They are not putting up big billboards on farmland, per se. They have looked at the law carefully, somebody has said, ''Look at this loophole. Why don't you just shove it on to an old trailer or tractor?''—and that is what they are doing. Although the clause will not deal with that, I  assume that at some stage somebody somewhere will look at it to ensure that it does not get out of hand completely. 
Talking about fly-posting, now and again when we drive around, we see banners saying, ''Happy birthday Rosie, 60 today'', and so on. Would that be covered by the Bill? It is not commercial, does not promote anything and is nothing other than somebody wishing to embarrass a close relative by saying how old they are. Mostly, such banners are taken down after a short period, too. Perhaps that will be covered under the provision on the number of days, although the ownership of the banner would be difficult to work out. 
To return to the point on political banners made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), it is true that in some local authorities during by-elections they are on lamp-posts all the time. There are byelaws that cover all sorts of things like that—in my local authority area there are not—and people are not allowed to put such posters up, because they would be fly-posting if they did so.

Matthew Green: I am not referring to posters on lamp-posts, because they might be on property on which it is illegal to post and is, perhaps, owned by the council. I am talking about posters attached to a stake in a hedge, which are used extensively in rural areas and are technically planning offences, but people get round that because of the 28-day rule.

Nigel Evans: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's clarification on that point. A poster on a lamp-post would be covered by the legislation, but posters in hedges is another matter. We use a lot of farmland in my constituency to get posters up along major highways. Political parties are, in the main, responsible about putting posters up and taking them down, which is the most ghastly job of all and the most depressing thing after a general election, because everybody is shattered. Perhaps we will get some clarification on such posters.
When the word ''affixed'' is used in clause 31, it is 
 ''without authorisation to any surface.'' 
I have already declared my interest. I own a piece of land, so I assume that I would be able to put up anything without any problems whatever, but if anyone else wanted to put something on the land in front of my shop it would be up to me to decide whether to give permission. Is that covered by the clause? There is a problem with furniture on the highways, where owners of shops or businesses want to put advertisements for a cafe, or whatever they sell, on pavements owned by the local authorities, or land owned by themselves. Some local authorities enforce measures rigidly, and with good cause, because in some cases it is to do with disabled people, those with prams and blind people getting proper access through to the highway. Will the Minister clarify whether billboards advertising particular items or services on private land adjacent to a public pavement are covered by the clause?

Alun Michael: We have ranged wide on a clause that is a good deal narrower than some of the issues that have been raised. It is entirely right for members of the Committee to ask whether such issues are covered under the clause, although it is more specific than the items to which hon. Members have referred. It defines fly-posting for the purposes of defacement removal notices and is linked to the relevant services defined under the 2003 Act. The way in which the explanatory notes outline the impact of the clause might be a little simple.
As the hon. Gentleman realised, vehicles on farm land stimulated a little resonance around the Room as an issue that is coming up the agenda. However, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as fly-posting. Environmental matters are one set of arrangements, whether fly-posting is a distraction to the highway is another and a transport issue, and permissions under the planning regulations raise yet another set of issues. I am not sure that the matter is simple to deal with, although it is easy to identify and attracts a certain measure of agreement. 
Political processes have authorisation under schedule 2, class F of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, a copy of which I carry everywhere with me and which I have in my hand at the moment. The difference in electoral material is clearly and specifically covered, not least because of the limited time to which hon. Members have referred. Advertising at election time is part of the price of democracy. Some of us have come across complications in the way in which that is regulated. Events during the Vale of Glamorgan by-election in 1989 spring to mind, as do matters with which my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) will be familiar.

Nigel Evans: In many cases, political parties find that they do not have to take down their posters because someone else has already done it for them.

Alun Michael: Yes, but the trouble is that it is not always done efficiently on the day or two before the end of the election, but earlier in the campaign.
As for the definition from ENCAMS to which the hon. Member for Vale of York referred, it is more of a description that is used for a statistical survey. It does not work as a legal definition, although it says what is within a definition to be able to measure the improvement or the duration of circumstances over time. 
Several important points have been made about definitions. Again, we know what we intend to stop: fly-posting. We know what it looks like, but when we come to the definition, authorisation seems to be the best way in which to deal with it as it links the issue to compliance with regulations under the 1990 Act. It is clear that what we have drafted is not as explicit as that, so it caused some of the queries that have been raised during our short debate. I undertake to look further at such matters. We have already started examining them to identify whether anything needs to  be defined more clearly. I will inform members of the Committee of the outcome of those deliberations and, if necessary, I will bring forward an amendment on Report.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister say whether we will have sight of that amendment before Report?

Alun Michael: I have not yet said that there will be an amendment on Report; I said that I will inform the Committee when we reach conclusions. If that is well in advance of Report, I will share my intentions with the Committee.

Anne McIntosh: Obviously, ENCAMS feels wedded to its definition. The only point to which the Minister did not respond was the representations from BT about fly-posting on its poles and in kiosks.

Alun Michael: That is because that fits with the issue of authorisation. I hope that that helps.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed. I am grateful for this little discussion; the Minister is now apprised of my concerns. I am delighted that he may be minded to bring forward an amendment. The mention of over-posting, and the decision to extend graffiti removal notices under the clause, shows recognition of what is happening. Given our thoughtful discussion, and the Minister's semi-commitment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Sale of aerosol paint to children

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: This is an opportunity for a small discussion. We welcome the provision enforcing the ban on the sale of aerosol paints to children under 18. I am sure that the Minister would wish to pay tribute to the many railway companies and others that have made massive investment, particularly on railway properties, in non-graffiti-stick materials. They are coming up with carriages and stations where graffiti paint will not take effect.
At present, local authorities rely on section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to make advisory visits to retailers to seek assurances that spray paints are not being, and will not be, sold to children. Will the Minister confirm that, under clause 32, there will be a more positive and rigorous control to make sure that the sale of aerosol paints to children under 18 is indeed prohibited? Will the enforcing officer of a local weights and measures authority be different depending on whether we are talking about a unitary authority or a county or district authority? 
I understand that it is difficult to give a precise figure for the percentage of graffiti committed by under-16s, but it is believed that they account for well over 60 per cent. of all graffiti, so the provision is potentially extremely important.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those points. This is an important decision because it will assist in the enforcement of the law. Anyone who has experienced some of the worst incidents of graffiti in their area has a strong wish for the issue to be tackled. Most of us have constituency experience of the problem.
The weights and measures authority is the district council in a two-tier arrangement, and in a unitary authority it is clear who is the authority. The requirement for them to consider and take stock of what is going on, on a regular basis, and then to reflect the need to tackle issues through a programme of activity, is set out clearly in the provisions. Proposed subsection (2) clarifies that, where appropriate, a variety of different measures can be taken. The bringing of prosecutions is important, but 
''the investigation of complaints in respect of alleged offences'', 
examining not just the offences themselves but what is going on in an area, is also important. The subsection also provides for 
''the taking of other measures intended to reduce the incidence of offences under that section.'' 
That takes into account the issues of educating the public, alerting parents to what is going on in their area, adopting measures through schools, and alerting retailers to the possibility that not all their customers may be legitimate, in terms of breaching the restriction on young people purchasing aerosols. It should be said that the problem is not restricted to young people, but the hon. Lady rightly points out that there is a predominance of such activity at the younger end of the scale. I hope that that addresses the points that she raised. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Unlawful display of advertisements: defences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I understand from the explanatory notes that the purpose of clause 33 is to
''remove the requirement for a local authority to prove that a person consented to the display of an advertisement in contravention of regulations.'' 
That obviously firms up what the Minister seeks to do with the current provisions. Has the Minister received representations from the National Farmers Union or from other similar organisations? The NFU is concerned about where the presumption will lie in subsection (3). In the subsection, which will be inserted into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, there is a requirement that any unauthorised advertisement should be removed. 
The Minister will understand that in deeply rural areas such as the Vale of York, where we still have large arable farms, the farmers work land that is widely distributed, not always easily accessible, and often divided by a major road artery such as the A1 or the A19. Consequently, they might not visit as frequently  as the Department expects. Those farmers may therefore not be aware of an illegal advert, will certainly not have given their consent to its being there, and probably do not have the time or tools to remove it once it is discovered. The NFU asks whether the Department is aware of the difficulties that might be faced in implementing that subsection, and that it should be applied reasonably to take account of such difficulties. 
We see what the Minister is trying to do, and that the current law has presented difficulties for local authorities because they have had to prove that the person concerned knew of, and consented to the display of the advertisement, which has made it hard to secure convictions. Will the Minister assure us that he understands that the subsection could inadvertently pose real problems for farming communities such as those that I represent. There are not too many hills in my constituency—hence the name the Vale of York—but there are outlying farms in the Howardian hills, and they will face difficulties with conforming to the provision, particularly in the winter. I hope that the Minister will have regard to those points.

Alun Michael: I must insist on one point: there is no requirement in clause 33 to remove illegal advertisements; that duty is in existing law. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that the powers and prosecutions should be proportionate. Subsection (3) sets out the defence, should things ever get to that point, of the person being able to show that
''the advertisement was displayed without his knowledge''. 
That would cover one aspect of her concern. The other defence is that 
''he took all reasonable steps to prevent the display or, after the advertisement had been displayed, to secure its removal.'' 
That does not require the taking of unreasonable steps. The issue is one of being reasonable and proportionate, but making it clear that in some circumstances landowners in urban and rural areas pay little attention to the effect of advertisements on their neighbours and other people who come into their vicinity. The clause sets out a reasonable requirement, not an unreasonable requirement. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Removal of placards and posters

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in clause 34, page 29, line 25, leave out 'or obliterate'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 59, in clause 34, page 30, line 11, at end insert—
 '(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (3) and (4), a person shall be deemed to display or cause to be displayed a placard or poster for the purposes of those subsections except when the placard or poster is displayed on a hoarding or other structure designed for the display of advertisements.'.

Matthew Green: The amendment deals with the problem of over-posting, which has been made clear to several members of the Committee by Westminster city council, although I am sure that it is not only council to have done so. It has provided some interesting statistics. The difficulty is that if the law allows that something can either be removed or obliterated, obliterating can be taken to mean putting another poster over the top of the existing one, so when a council serves an enforcement notice in respect of a poster, the fly-poster can get out of it by posting another on top. To give some idea of the scale, Westminster city council say that in 2002
'''over-posting' negated enforcement of 82 per cent. of the notices served''. 
In 2003, it negated 92 per cent. of the notices and in 2004 it negated 89 per cent. 
Clearly, the Government do not intend to allow people to get round legislation in such a way. Removing the words ''or obliterate'' would force somebody to remove the poster. If the Government are not minded to accept this amendment, there is another option, which is to change the section so that the local authority is given the decision whether to ask for the poster's removal or its obliteration. I understand that that approach may be taken in the London local authorities Bill. It may be sensible to copy the approach used there, if the Minister is not minded to remove the words ''or obliterate'' from this Bill. 
The second amendment, to which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford have put our names, was suggested by the Outdoor Advertising Association of Great Britain Ltd., which has pointed out that the addition would bring the clause into line with section 10 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995. Apparently, when DEFRA consulted on the proposed Bill, that part was included but it has not been included in the published Bill. It has the effect of sorting out potential ambiguities concerning planning consent for poster sites and the argument about whether they have express or deemed planning consent. Given that the Minister is going to look into the other potential problem of definition, perhaps he could look at the matter mentioned in the amendment and see whether there is a problem, or reassure us that the provision has been found not to be needed. As I say, amendment is exactly in line with section 10 of the 1995 Act and it would make this Bill appear in the same form.

Anne McIntosh: I was interested to see that we have gained the support of the hon. Members for Ludlow and for Guildford. I read with interest the hon. Gentleman's entry on the Register of Members' Interests, which states that he enjoys commission from sales of timber products on behalf of Traditional Products Ltd. Clearly, he has some commitment to sustainable development.

Matthew Green: The hon. Lady obviously has not read the most recent version, because that entry has been removed. I no longer receive any commission.

Anne McIntosh: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the latest version has not been changed. I hope that what he says does not mean that his  commitment to sustainable development has been weakened. Nevertheless, I am delighted to have the support of the Liberal Democrats.
The hon. Member for Ludlow was kind enough to mention our attention to the problem of over-posting in his remarks on amendment No. 61, which deals with the issue. It is a real problem and the cost to local authorities of unlawful advertising should not be underestimated. The Government's regulatory impact assessment states that the total implied cost to local authorities is £7.6 million. I am not sure whether that figure includes London, but it is considerable. It is incumbent on the Government to state whether they are satisfied that the problem of over-posting will be resolved in the way proposed. 
We are concerned about the question dealt with by our amendment's statement that 
''a person shall be deemed to display or cause to be displayed a placard or poster . . . except when the placard or poster is displayed on a hoarding or other structure designed for the display of advertisements''. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred earlier to the problem of vehicles, particularly those on agricultural land, which were never intended for the purpose in question. Perhaps the Minister will provide some clarification. 
Finally, does the Minister have in mind only fixed displays of posters, or moving hoardings as well? They can entail difficulties.

Alun Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond, although in view of the source of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ludlow I am tempted to table an amendment to create a penalty for adding to litter in the Palace of Westminster by distributing material—presumably not political and certainly not religious—from Westminster city council.
I must resist the amendments, for several reasons. Amendment No. 61 would have no effect. Clause 34 enables a local planning authority to recover its costs under section 225(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for removing or obliterating an illegally displayed placard or poster. Removing the word ''obliterate'' from clause 34 would not affect that ability. An amendment to the 1990 Act would be needed for that. 
It is not clear to me, in any event, why the hon. Gentleman would want to inhibit a planning authority from recovering its costs from those responsible for fly-posting. If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is concerned about the possibility of obliterating rather than removing an illegal poster. It is claimed that that can lead to abuse; for instance, a fly-poster could be obliterated with another fly-poster, but in that case the remedy is simple. The person involved can be prosecuted under section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for putting up a poster in contravention of regulations made under the Act. 
I do not follow the logic of amendment No. 61. If an advertisement is displayed illegally, it should not matter that it is displayed alongside other, legal  advertisements. The question is whether an advertisement displayed is illegal. I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will not press the amendment.

Matthew Green: I think that the Minister meant amendment No. 59 when he said 61. He said that he did not understand its logic. I was persuaded that the amendment was worth tabling in order to ask why the clause is drafted differently from section 10 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995. The different may suggest that the 1995 legislation was badly drafted or contained an unnecessary section. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that, then the need for the amendment would disappear. Would he like to intervene on me to suggest that the 1995 legislation contained an unnecessary section?

Alun Michael: I am not saying that. We are amending other legislation and sometimes that makes it a little more complicated and we have approach it in a different way. As for the precise drafting, if we are to get into the comparative exegesis of the drafting of clauses, I will have to consider both in detail and get back to the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to give him an undertaking that I shall do that.

Matthew Green: I thank the Minister for doing that. We have raised the relevant issues and I am glad that he has clarified what powers there are in the case of over-posting. I hope that the Minister and those assisting him will consider that in order to be certain that there is no longer a loophole, because clearly some people believe that there is. If he will also consider why the drafting is different and if he can be confident that he does not need to alter it, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 4—Unlawful display of advertisements—
 '(1) Section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) (regulations controlling display of advertisements) is amended as follows. 
 (2) After subsection (3) insert— 
 ''(3A) The local planning authority must exercise its powers so as to ensure compliance with the provisions of these regulations in its area.''.'.

Anne McIntosh: This is the first new clause that we have submitted. A probing amendment, it gives us the opportunity briefly to consider clause 34. We want to discuss legally placed posters, which will be excluded. I am thinking in particular of subsection (5), which states:
 ''Where any damage is caused to land or chattels in the exercise of the power under subsection (1) in relation to a placard or poster, compensation may be recovered by any person suffering the damage from the local planning authority exercising the power.'' 
The new clause is designed to probe the type of street furniture and area to which, in the Minister's view, clause 34 and this part of the Bill will relate. We are seeking to differentiate the situation in which posters are legally displayed. I know that the Minister is still in  discussions, so I imagine that things are still at an exploratory stage, but perhaps he would be good enough to say whether he believes that kiosks will come under the provision. 
Turning to the resource implications, we have had a fairly full discussion of the problem of over-posting, which is not removing the poster but covering it with another one. To empower the enforcement officers to deal with that will carry a substantial cost. The Minister will probably confirm that that the power is discretionary and permissive, but I wonder what will be the incentive for local authorities to implement the proposal.

Alun Michael: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has retreated from new clause 4, which would be massively unpopular in many quarters. It seems to be designed to ensure that breaches of the control of advertisement regulations do not occur—at all, ever, in any form—and to place a duty on local planning authorities to take enforcement action in every single case in which the regulations are breached. I resist the proposal for several reasons. First, local planning authorities' enforcement powers are discretionary—the new clause would move away from that principle. Secondly, a duty to enforce in all cases, irrespective of the nature and circumstances of the breach, would put an additional and unwarranted burden on local authorities. Thirdly, it is important that local authorities can target their resources on those advertisements that cause harm or, if there is a hierarchy of harm, those which cause the most harm. I feel strongly that new clause 4 should not be in the Bill.
The hon. Lady asked what can be done to incentivise local authorities. That can be done in a variety of ways. First, the views of elected representatives in general are strongly in favour of enforcement being taken to improve the quality of the local environment. Hon. Members have a responsibility in that regard. Secondly, there is the increasing encouragement of measuring what is done by local authorities in relation to local environmental quality. As I said in a previous sitting, the third ECAMS report will shortly be published, from which we will be able to see what progress has been made over a three-year period. By that means, and through the best value indicators, especially performance indicator 199, with which I am sure that hon. Members are intimately familiar, we are getting to the point at which local authorities are being held to account because what they do is measured. It is then up to local representatives to ask whether they are satisfied with the performance and its improvement over time. 
 The clause amends section 225(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to include a cost-recovery provision to enable local planning authorities to recoup the cost of removing posters. That, in itself, is surely an encouragement to local authorities to undertake the work. The costs of removal are recoverable from the person who displayed the poster or caused it to be displayed, or, if they cannot be identified, from the person whose goods, services or  concerns are publicised. To protect the rights of property owners and those advertising legally, there is an additional provision in the clause relating to compensation for the damage, causes and consequence of the removal process and/or for the removal of a poster that was displayed legitimately. 
The clause also gives local planning authorities rights of entry to occupied and unoccupied land in order to remove unlawful posters. As we found in the consultation period, those measures will be popular and effective. I resist new clause 4, but commend clause stand part.

Anne McIntosh: Something that neither he nor I had considered is whether a local authority will have to take out costly and additional indemnity if they might be sued by a resident or a utility company when it is alleged that damage has been caused to their property from the removal of a poster.

Alun Michael: I confess that my knowledge may be slightly out of date, but I believe a local authority has the choice of insuring or carrying the indemnity within its own finances. Unless things are changed, it has that choice, depending on what it tends to do. The best approach would be through best practice and reducing the likelihood of any liability arising.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will appreciate that the most significant and pertinent point that I made was that the resources that will be required for the recovery of the costs are disproportionate to the benefits when the costs are recovered.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Registration requirements and conditions

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in clause 36, page 31, line 10, after 'impose', insert 'reasonable'.
Many Committee members are concerned about waste and fly-tipping. We must deal effectively and appropriately with the problem. The amendment is about waste transport. We do not want to see the regulation authority making a profit out of the charges imposed on waste carriers; we want them just to cover the running costs of the scheme. We have no difficulty with authorities keeping the proceeds from fixed penalty notices, but we do not want to see predatory action just for the sake of it. The public have been upset in the past about speed cameras and has regarded them as a form of predatory action, so we are testing the provision to determine the Government's intention. Is it reasonable to expect a problem? Do they intend the provision to be used regularly? If so, it  should be made clear that that is necessary to deal with the scourge of the illegal transport of waste. If that is a Government strategy, we need to be clear about it.

Elliot Morley: May I start by saying how pleased I am to see you in the Chair and to be serving under you, Mr. Forth? I am also pleased to see so many familiar faces supporting the Bill and to be serving again in partnership with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality on piloting through effective new legislation. I know that Opposition Members, too, welcome the clauses and the Bill.
The hon. Member for Guildford is asking for the word ''reasonable'' to be inserted into the power for a regulation authority to charge for inspection of waste carriers. I understand her argument, but I think that I can reassure her straightaway that it is not necessary to specify in the Bill that a charge should be reasonable. The Environment Agency is under an duty to consult on any fees and charges that it imposes and to ensure that charges cover costs only. That is in line with the polluter pays principle on charges levied in this way, whereby those who are regulated should be required to cover the cost of that regulation. 
If the hon. Lady is worried that the measure gives the Environment Agency powers to levy punitive fines or to boost its coffers, I assure her that that is not so. The agency is obliged simply to cover its costs and to ensure that when it sets charges it does so after full consultation.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his response and welcome him to this part of the debate. We have worked together a lot on waste issues and occasionally we have a robust debate, but there is no doubt that we need to get to grips with this Bill, which is an important piece of legislation that I welcome.
I certainly have the reassurance that I sought. We will draw attention later in our deliberations to the fact that the Environment Agency is underfunded to undertake the work that it needs to. At this stage, we wanted to get a clear understanding of how such schemes are financed so that it is obvious to the public that people will not be forced into doing things just to collect more money. The Minister has satisfied me on that score, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Enforcement powers

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in clause 37, page 31, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert—
 '( ) by producing it at a place specified by the authorised officer or constable within ten days; or'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 66, in clause 37, page 31, leave out line 46 and insert—
 '( ) by nominating a person to produce it forthwith to the authorised officer or constable.'. 
No. 91, in clause 37, page 32, line 28, leave out 'or was being' and insert 
', was being, or would have been'. 
No. 92, in clause 37, page 33, line 9, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'. 
No. 93, in clause 37, page 33, line 19, at end insert 
(f) the return of personal possessions contained within the vehicle that do not relate to the suspected transportation of controlled waste in contravention of section 1(1) above'.

Anne McIntosh: I, too, welcome the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment to the Committee. We seek confirmation and assurances from the Minister that the involvement of police officers in the seizure, stopping and searching of vehicles will continue and that either residual responsibility will lie with the police, or they will be co-responsible with other enforcement officers. There is a commercial and cowboy element to some practices, particularly illegal waste disposal and fly-tipping, which we will discuss later, and a uniformed police officer can be a reassuring presence when the going gets tough.

Sue Doughty: I will comment first on amendments Nos. 65 and 66, because we, too, have concerns. The 10 days suggested in amendment No. 65 is longer than the seven days within which the police can require drivers to bring their licence to a police station, but I do not understand why somebody should have to take authorisation to a police station; if they want to send it to a police station, they carry the risk. The requirement is to produce authorisation at a police station, but they should not have to turn up and put it in a constable's hand. We are not altogether sure why a person must, as stated in new section 5(4)(b), produce authorisation
''at a place and within a period specified''. 
The most important thing is to prove that authorisation exists. We need clarity on what we are trying to achieve. 
Amendment No. 91 picks up on a minor discrepancy between new section 5(2)(b) and (8)(b) of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989. New subsection (2)(b) states that a vehicle can be stopped by an officer if it 
''appears to him to be a vehicle that has been, is being or is about to used for transporting . . . waste''. 
In the latter case, there may be reasonable cause to stop a vehicle that does not have waste on it. However, new subsection (8)(b), which relates to the offence of failing to co-operate with an officer, refers only to waste that 
''was or was being transported''. 
Therefore, new section 5 is a tad inconsistent. In the first case, the vehicle might not have the waste on it, but an officer may suspect that it is going to be used illegally. In the second case, the implication is that the  waste is on the vehicle. If the Minister looks closely at that wording, I think he will agree that it is inconsistent. 
Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 take us way back to a time when the Inland Revenue impounded vehicles at Dover or Calais when people were suspected or accused of tobacco smuggling. Representations were made to several Members of Parliament by people who complained that their car had been impounded, and we disputed the matter with the Inland Revenue at great length. One point of dispute was the fact that people's personal possessions were on the vehicle, and if they had a jacket in there or a suitcase because of a long journey, they were not allowed to collect them. 
The amendments in no way seek to get in the way of the intention in the clause to impound, but they protect the individual's right to get back belongings that are in no way related to the waste or to the vehicle being used to transport the waste and that are completely extraneous to the offence that it is thought is being committed.

Elliot Morley: I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York about the role of the police in stopping and impounding vehicles. I am very pleased that she seems to have calmed down in her ambition to turn the Environment Agency into some sort of paramilitary force, although there are those who claim that it is already such a force.
The agency often works with the police, as I have said in previous debates, particularly in large-scale stop-and-search exercises. Under existing legislation, only a police officer has the power to stop a vehicle on the highway. The Bill empowers the agency and local authorities to seize vehicles, even if a police officer is not with them. In reality, it is more than likely that they will have a police officer with them, because they tend to work in partnership with the police, particularly when they are carrying out major exercises. The agency or local authority could be called to an incident at which someone with a vehicle may run away. In such a circumstance, the Bill would empower them to impound the vehicle. 
Clause 37 already allows a period to be specified in regulations, so there is no need for amendment No. 65. It is more appropriate for regulations to deal with detailed provisions that relate to the production of the documents. The intention behind amendment No. 66 is not altogether clear, as the clause already requires the person transporting the waste to produce the documents forthwith or within a period specified in the regulations, which tends to be seven days. 
Waste carriers are currently required to produce evidence of registration at a specified place within seven days, as there is no requirement for them to carry their waste-carrier registration documents at all times. It is understandable that people may not carry all the documentation, but seven days is a reasonable period in which to produce them. 
The offence to which amendment No. 91 relates is the failure of a person to produce a valid authority when they are reasonably believed to be, or to have  been engaged in, transporting controlled waste without being registered as a waste carrier. An offence is committed only if controlled waste is or has been transported, which is the reason for the language in the Bill. 
Amendment No. 92 is not needed. The regulations permitted by the clause will be developed in consultation with all those who may be affected, and will be put to the House for consideration in due course. My officials will ensure that regulations will include all the necessary provisions.

David Drew: My local authority, Stroud district council, thinks that this is the single most important clause of the Bill. It has always found that the biggest problem is that there is no real sanction against people who transport waste illegally, even though we may get them to move it, or tell them not to do it again. However, the threat of taking their vehicle will really get their attention. I hope that the Minister will take note of that.

Elliot Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the response from the consultation, it was clear that many local authorities' representations were along the same lines as that made by my hon. Friend and his authority. Fly-tipping is a serious offence, and we need to take every power that we can to deal with it. Confiscating the vehicle responsible for it is very effective. Its sends a clear message to those involved in fly-tipping that there is no intention of tolerating it.
Amendment No. 93 is the last in the group, and I think that I can give the hon. Lady some assurance about it. It relates to clause 37, which refers to seized property and includes a provision about 
''the circumstances in which the authority must return any such property to a person claiming entitlement to it''. 
That property will include the vehicle itself and its contents, including any waste and personal possessions, so they, and anything that is in the vehicle at the time, are covered. That relates to the fact that in some cases people may have the right to the return of everything. 
I understand the point that the hon. Lady was making about anything personal that might be left in the vehicle, and in certain circumstances—in the case of papers, for example—the local authorities might want to look at them. But I should have thought that the Bill would let people take the things that the hon. Lady mentioned, such as jackets and personal possessions of that kind.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We have not reached the relevant clause yet, but I hope that not just vehicles but perpetrators of the offence will be apprehended; anything else would make nonsense of the Bill.
Mr. Morley indicated assent.

Anne McIntosh: I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and we shall reserve our opinion until later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Failure to produce authority: fixed penalty notices

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 35, line 9, leave out from 'be' to end of line 10 and insert
'used only for the purposes of its functions under section 5 above (including functions relating to the enforcement of offences under that section).'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in clause 52, page 47, leave out from 'must' to end of line 37 and insert
'used only for the purposes of its functions under section 34A above (including functions relating to the enforcement of offences under that section).'.

Sue Doughty: The amendment comes back to my concern about the inconsistency with which we treat the Environment Agency, compared with local government. We are talking about who keeps the receipts for fixed penalty notices. On Second Reading, I mentioned that there are major problems with the apprehension and conviction of criminals by the Environment Agency. I appreciate that there will be occasions when the Environment Agency thinks it more appropriate to issue a caution than to take matters further, but the fact is that people are disillusioned with the Environment Agency's ability to cope with that. The agency itself is concerned about the costs that it will run up if it is to carry out its requirements.
Yesterday, I went to meet one of my parish councils, the Worplesdon parish council, which has had a huge amount of fly-tipping on Stringer's common. Curiously, a lot of it is not reported on the flycatcher database because the parish thinks that it is not worth it, but it may get to the point when the parish does decides to report it. I asked how many of the instances went on to flycatcher; the answer was only some, and that depended on whether the incident was handled by the warden from Surrey Wildlife Trust, the Environment Agency, the police or the local authority. The reality is that the Environment Agency just is not coping with the huge issues. The provision would be consistent with local government being allowed to keep the receipts for fixed penalty notices. The Environment Agency needs the funding to help with enforcement just as councils do. It seems strange that in the agency's case the money goes back to the Government, but in the case of the council it goes back to the council. 
We shall express concerns later about who is to pay the cost of the clear-up. We will end up with a compound problem, in that the Environment Agency is not funded sufficiently to do the protection and  conviction work in the first place, and is not even able to keep the penalty receipts, which may not be a huge sum but would help. Yet it is required to do the work, and farmers, the Woodland Trust and others must pay the costs of the clean-up. 
The amendment is intended to enable us to scrutinise what will be done with the income from fixed penalty notices, and to draw attention to the inconsistency between provisions for local government and the Environment Agency. The need for the agency to do more enforcement work came out strongly in the evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, in its reports ''Environmental Crime and the Courts'' and ''Environmental Crime: Fly-tipping, Fly-posting, Litter, Graffiti and Noise''. 
We need the agency to get on with the job. It is important that it should be able to, and the amendment is a small marker of our belief in that commitment.

Elliot Morley: I have always had a great deal of sympathy with the argument that there is a case for fines to go back to the prosecuting authority as part of the funding of enforcement. There are counter-arguments, and I shall outline those to the hon. Lady.
First, the hon. Lady claims that there is an inconsistency between the way in which the Environment Agency and local authorities are treated. The argument is that the Environment Agency is an arm of central Government and is therefore funded by grant in aid. That grant in aid has gone up considerably. I thought that the hon. Lady was a bit hard on the Environment Agency. There will always be an argument about resources. No one in any Department, Government agency or other division ever gets the amount they really want. Nevertheless, the spend is rising for the Environment Agency, in recognition of its range of responsibilities.

Sue Doughty: In general, I am a great supporter of the Environment Agency. When some people wanted its responsibilities devolved to local government I was one of those who said that its strength came from working in the way it does. However, although we know that the resources available to the agency have increased, what proportion of them is intended to go towards the detection and conviction of environmental crime and criminals?

Elliot Morley: The Environment Agency is by its very nature a stand-alone agency—and that is one of its strengths. It has a board, a chief executive and a chairman. The grant in aid is a lump sum and the agency is free to make its own priorities. It is free to determine how much to allocate to its various functions and responsibilities.
The Environment Agency has also been very effective in controlling costs and reducing its overheads, which generates more funding for it and is an aspect of its freedom to determine its own priorities. The agency currently allocates about £12 million to enforcement of waste issues. 
It is also the case that fines that go into the Consolidated Fund can be allocated to areas that are considered to have the highest priority. There is a strategic issue as well. I know the arguments range for and against. The hon. Lady might know that DEFRA sponsored a successful conference on environmental law and environmental review, where a wide-ranging discussion took place on the nature of environmental law. I cannot offer any more comfort than that, except for saying that this will inevitably be an ongoing debate. 
It is important to weigh up the arguments for and against. However, at the present time it is felt that the Environment Agency should be funded through its grant in aid. There is a distinction between the agency and local authorities. We should also bear in mind that the powers for local authorities are permissive, while the agency has duties and responsibilities.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his thoughts. I am not without sympathy with some of the points. I appreciate that he is seeing some of the argument without necessarily being able to move across. However, I do have concerns.
When the time comes, presumably annually, that the Environment Agency discusses with the Government what its grant in aid should be, budgets and requirements are discussed and the Government say that they want it to do more of this and less of that. That would be prudent government. Although the Minister said that it is up to the Environment Agency what it does with its money, that is a little disingenuous, because anyone who is applying for a grant does not just say, ''Give me £12 million.'' They say, ''Give me £12 million, and I will spread that across the huge range of activities that the Environment Agency undertakes.'' 
We are returning to the particulars of who funds the Environment Agency and the concerns that have been repeatedly expressed not only by the Environment Agency—the Minister might say, ''Well, they would, wouldn't they?'', because all organisations say that they are underfunded—but by independent people,  magistrates, parish councils, wardens, and police. Not only that, but when I went to meet my local National Farmers Union, its representatives explained the major problems of hazardous waste being tipped on to their land and said that they call the Environment Agency but that unless the problem is incredibly easy to solve, it will not put in the resources.

Elliot Morley: I understand the hon. Lady's point, but in some of the examples she has given landowners should bear in mind that local authorities also have those powers and responsibilities. It is often the case that the Environment Agency is brought into matters where local authorities could do the work and take off some of the pressure.

Sue Doughty: I have to recognise that there is a time when people want to go home; we have been working hard today, and have covered a lot of ground. However, I hope we will be able to return to the issue later, because it is important. Although I can recognise at this stage that we will not be able to move an amendment and win it, I would be very unhappy about letting the issue go completely. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Six o'clock till Tuesday 25 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.